- (1.) The Damodar Valley Corporation (hereafter referred to as DVC) constituted under central Act XIV of 1948 and its General Manager respectively are the appellants in this appeal by special leave directed against the judgment of the division bench of the Patna High court.
(2.) In the early years of the setting up of the Corporation, several employees were recruited in its diffe- rent sections. Gradually the field of activity of the Corporation expanded. in due course, in exercise of the powers under S. 60 of the Act, the corporation framed regulations. Regulation 14 providing for promotion of employees, runs thus:- "Promotion shall be based on merit, relative suitability of a candidate for a particular post and seniority and shall, in the case of promotion to Class I, be made ordinarily after considering the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee to 4 be set up for the purpose. Their functions and procedures shall be similar to such committees functioning under the central government with suitable modifications. "in March, 1960, the Corporation decided to introduce qualifying tests as a condition precedent to promotion. The respondents who moved the High court under Article 226 of the constitution belong to the operational S. working in the Thermal Power units located at Durgapur, Bokaro and Chandrapura. As already mentioned, in the initial years in the absence of suitable candidates in sufficient number, the local candidates had been recruited without strict Insistence upon qualification. The Selection Committee allowed a group of 31 employees promotion without insisting upon examination on condition that they should pass the departmental examination within a fixed period thereafter, in course of five years they failed to pass such examination and no reversion was ordered as the management apprehended trouble over the matter. The writ petition was filed in the High court challenging the system of departmental examination for promotion banking upon the exception granted as aforesaid and insistence upon holding of such examination in respect of others. The High. court found that the management was guilty of discriminatory treatment and, therefore, quashed Annexures 3, 5a and 10 and directed the management to make appointments in accordance with regulations and law.
(3.) Two contentions were advanced by Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the Corporation: "(1) Valid regulations prescribed screening and departmental tests for promotion and the High court should not have interfered with the appointments made according to law, and (2) in the special situation indicated above, the High court should have come to hold that it was not a case of discrimination and the explanation given by the management with reference to the peculiar situation should have been accepted. "on the other hand, Mr. Asoke Sen appearing for the respondent-employees maintained that in respect of recruits in the initial period there was no provision for any examination for earning promotion and later regulations providing for screening and departmental examinations would not govern recruits prior to the enforcement of the regulations. He also contended that aubaequfent recruits are more qualified and if there is insistence upon examination, promotional avenues would be really closed for the earlier recruita.;